Arbitration Act Vs Consumer Protection Act

Arbitration Act Vs Consumer Protection Act

Section 3 - Consumer Protection Act

"Act not in derogation of any other law. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force".

Important Judgements :

1.Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the remedy of arbitration is not the only remedy available. Rather, it is an optional remedy. Consumer can either seek reference to an arbitrator or file a complaint under the Consumer Act. If the consumer opts for the remedy of arbitration, then it may be possible to say that he cannot, subsequently, file complaint under the Consumer Act. However, if he chooses to file a complaint in the first instance before the competent Consumer Forum, then he cannot be denied relief by invoking Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act. Moreover, the plain language of Section 3 of the Consumer Act makes it

clear that the remedy available in that Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. (2012 ) 2 SCC 506

2.National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has held that the Consumer Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act are not bound to refer the dispute raised in the complaint on an application filed u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act of 1996 seeking reference of the dispute to an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of valid arbitration clause in the agreement entered into between the parties. 

DLF Ltd Vs Mridul Estates (Revision Petition No. 412 of 2011) decided on 13.05.2013  

3. Also, once the matter is taken through the National Consumer Forum route, one might lose any further options for arbitration. "Once the matter has been decided finally by the National Forum and thereafter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, neither an arbitrator can be allowed to sit over or adjudicate the dispute a fresh nor he is empowered under the law to re-appreciate the matter by reopening the dispute diminishing the value of judicial system. No party can be allowed to drag other in litigation once the matter has been resolved by the highest forum else no dispute ever can reach to its finality." 

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs R.K. Industries 2005 (3) ARBLR 412 NULL (Chhattisgarh High Court 25.01.2005) 

4. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "Though the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission are judicial authorities, for the purpose of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, in view of the object of the Act and by operation of Section 3 thereof, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate that these forums created under the Act are at liberty to proceed with the matters in accordance with the provisions of the Act rather than relegating the parties to an arbitration proceedings pursuant to a contract entered into between the parties. The reason is that the Act intends to relieve the consumers of the cumbersome arbitration proceedings or civil action unless the forums on their own and on the peculiar facts and circumstances of particular case, come to the conclusion that the appropriate forum for adjudication of the disputes would be otherwise those given in the Act. Considered from this perspective, we hold that this dispute need not be referred to arbitration ....." 

M/s Fair Air Engineers Pvt Ltd & Vs N K Modi, (1996) 6 SCC 385

5. It is authoritatively settled that the arbitration clause is not a bar to the entertainment of the complaint by the Redressal Agency  constituted under the Act, even if the arbitration provision has been laid down in a statute; Ram Nath v. Improvement Trust, Bathinda, 1994 (I) CPR 357.

PS: We do not accept any liability arising out of use of above information. Users are advised to apply their own thoughts and experience in above case.

SC on Territorial Jurisdiction : NI Act

SC on Territorial Jurisdiction:NI Act (Cheque Bouncing)

A 3-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its landmark judgement has settled issues related to Court’s territorial jurisdiction concerning criminal complaints filed under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’).

Points to Note:

(1) The return of the cheque by the drawee bank alone constitutes the commission of the offence and indicates the place where the offence is committed.

(2) The place, situs or venue of judicial inquiry and trial of the offence must logically be restricted to where the drawee bank, is located.

(3) The territorial jurisdiction is restricted to the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, which in the present context is where the cheque is dishonoured by the bank on which it is drawn.

(4) Only those cases where, post the summoning and appearance of the alleged Accused, the recording of evidence has commenced as envisaged in Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, will proceeding continue at that place. 

(5) Regardless of whether evidence has been led before the Magistrate at the pre-summoning stage, either by affidavit or by oral statement, the Complaint will be maintainable only at the place where the cheque stands dishonoured. 

(6) The category of Complaint cases where proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145(2) or beyond shall be deemed to have been transferred from the Court ordinarily possessing territorial jurisdiction, as now clarified, to the Court where it is presently pending. All other Complaints (including those where the accused/respondent has not been properly served) shall be returned to the Complainant for filing in the proper Court.

(7) If such Complaints are filed/refiled within thirty days of their return, they shall be deemed to have been filed within the time prescribed by law, unless the initial or prior filing was itself time barred.

(8) The relief introduced by Section 138 of the NI Act is in addition to the contemplations in the IPC. It is still open to such a payee recipient of a dishonoured cheque to lodge a First Information Report with the Police or file a Complaint directly before the concerned Magistrate.

PS: We do not accept any liability arising out of use of above information. Users are advised to apply their own thoughts and experience in above case.

Case Number: 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2287 OF 2009

Case Title:
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Bench:

Hon'ble Justice T.S. THAKUR

Hon'ble Justice VIKRAMAJIT SEN
Hon'ble Justice C. NAGAPPAN

Date of Judgement: 
1st August 2014

Blog Link:
http://jeetendergupta.blogspot.in/2014/08/sc-on-territorial-jurisdiction-ni-act.html

Full judgement / Order Link:
http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41801

Supreme Court on Misuse of IPC 498A

Supreme Court on Misuse of IPC 498A (Dowry Cases) 

"There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. “Crime in India 2012 Statistics” published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal."

Supreme Court on Power to Arrest 

"Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the law makers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.PC. It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasized time and again by Courts but has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive."

Supreme Court Directions on Arrest

Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued following directions to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused and unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically :

(1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;

(2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

(3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

(4) The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

(5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

(6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

(7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

(8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

Shall Apply beyond Section 498A also 

The directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the particular case, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

Case Number: 

Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014

Case Title:
Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar & Anr.

Bench:

Hon'ble Justice Chandrmauli Kr. Prasad

Hon'ble Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose

Date of Judgement: 
2nd July 2014

Blog Link:
http://www.jeetendergupta.blogspot.in/2014/07/supreme-court-arrest-directions-dowry.html

Full judgement / Order Link:
http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41736

Disclaimer: We do not accept any liability arising out of use of above information. Users are advised to apply their own thoughts and experience in above case.

2014: Supreme Court on Right To Education (RTE)

2014 : Supreme Court on Right To Education 

Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the Right to Education in case of all Private Schools except the minority schools (aided or unaided).

Personal Interpretation to the best of understanding:

1. Article 21A of the Constitution, provides that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine. 

2. Parliament has made the law contemplated by Article 21A by enacting the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short ‘the 2009 Act’). 

3. The constitutional validity of the 2009 Act was considered by a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC 1]. Two of the three Judges had held the 2009 Act to be constitutionally valid, but they have also held that the 2009 Act is not applicable to unaided minority schools protected under Article 30(1)

of the Constitution. In the aforesaid case, however, the three-Judge Bench did not go into the question whether clause (5) of Article 15 or Article 21A of the Constitution is valid and does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has now held that 2009 Act is not ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution for Private (non-minority schools)as it did not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of the non-minority private schools that Article 21A of the Constitution and the 2009 Act violate their right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

5. However, for minority schools aided or unaided, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "2009 Act in so far as it applies to minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution is ultra vires the Constitution".  If the 2009 Act is made applicable to minority schools, aided or unaided, the right of the minorities under Article 30(1) of the Constitution will be abrogated. Therefore, the 2009 Act in so far it is made applicable to minority schools referred in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution is ultra vires the Constitution

PS: Above are personal interpretations. We do not accept any liability arising out of use of above information. Users are advised to apply their own thoughts and experience in above case.

Case Number: 

Writ Petition (Civil) No.416 of 2012

Case Title:

Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors.

Bench:

Hon'ble CJI. R.M. Lodha

Hon'ble Justice A. K. Patnaik

Hon'ble Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya

Hon'ble Justice Dipak Misra

Hon'ble Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla

Date of Judgement: 
06th May 2014

Blog Link:

http://jeetendergupta.blogspot.in/2014/05/2014-supreme-court-on-right-to.html

Full judgement / Order Link:

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41505